Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Julian Assange - First Class Fuckwit
#31
(01-14-2019, 02:31 AM)stanky Wrote:  It remains possible for a corporation to behave ethically.

Not if it's a public company, it isn't. Friedman is all-encompassing on sharemarkets and any company having an ethical approach is going to fail miserably at the shrine of Mammon known as Wall Street. Shareholders won't accept lower returns for social justice, just as people won't stop driving cars that are killing our own ecosystem.

Until you have legislated necessity for companies to heed other voices than shareholders, it won't happen.

(01-14-2019, 04:50 AM)Di Wundrin Wrote:  And the 'Arab' traders beat the Christian missionaries to the exploitation game by a thousand years.
 

And the Egyptians beat them by a few thousand years.

I think there are also pretty good examples in Zimbabwe and Congo right now that prove tribalism is alive & well in Africa.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#32
Yes, power struggles in Africa precede colonialism. The same is true in South America and the Middle East.
In the past century, the U.S. has been the undisputed champ in influencing elections in foreign states, to suit our needs.
"Influencing" is putting it lightly. We're happy to dispose an elected leader, and install a dictator...if it keeps the flow of wealth headed in the right direction.

It's a damn shame that American History is not taught.

Minus the factual education, we're allowed to deem Central American refugees as a problem we had no part in.
Holy shit. What an insane and inane disconnect from reality.
One that continues to this day.

Our largess has us bombing 8 different countries presently...for what ever fucked up reason.

Bolton and Pompeo are hot to trot on bombing Iran. They're goddamned terrorists that must be stopped.
Our history there simply doesn't exist. There is no Shah. Our intent is always pure. Hell, we spent a few trillion bucks just to liberate Iraq from the evil Saddam. We trashed the country in the process; killed a few million; created militant Muslim groups...but we saved Iraq from an evil dictator, whom we financed initially...at a very low cost to global policing in general.

It's hard to pick on charity efforts, even when they follow the preceding carnage.

There would be no need for charity, with it's humiliation and cultural upheavels, if we could curb the greed instead.

Guys like Gates, that want to give something back, need to be scrutinized. When he was busy promoting the Monsanto plan to save the starving Africans, he was making money on Monsanto stock. And of course, there's the tax dodge of philanthropy.
Gates isn't the worst of them, by far....but so far, his amazing charity work hasn't affected his wealth one drop. He gets richer while being charitable. And people treat him as a saint. Such sacrifice; such selfless service to mankind.

Imagine nations too poor or uneducated to provide vaccines for the populace.
Vaccines are really cheap. It's an obscenity of greed that certain nations rely on the guy in the white hat to come riding to the rescue.

Not only is it never free, at times this generosity of spirit comes with expired stock from huge Pharma.

Most people are unaware of the ins and outs of the philanthro-capitalism sector. It is almost never what it pretends to be.
Catholic charities are a fine example.
The good works done by Catholic organizations in poor places almost makes up for the child abuse and vast tax-free wealth and power of RC,inc. That's the perfect example of the christ like spirit of giving.

Push insanity on the uneducated; instill fear and guilt, with ceremonial hooplah; and suddenly you're a tax-free multi-billionaire land holder...squeezing quarters from peasants around the world...guided by an infallible Pope.

Corporate charity, in general, follows the example of the Roman Catholic show.
It's a token; great attention is given to it.

The basic model of giving ensures that the givers will get more than those they give to.

I've witnessed this phenomena so much, that frankly, Gate's generosity is pre-ruined.


I ask you to recall what set me off in this direction on this thread...and it was what I saw as a troubling exaggeration that T.A. was struggling with, regarding what an epic cunt Assange is.

wtf? he's not rich.

So, we pick and choose our cunts. Assange doesn't bother me. Doesn't make the top hundred list of cunts.

So, yeah..all this has been my reaction to what i see as an allergic reaction to Assange that T.A. has.
I'd still suggest that Gates is a massively larger cunt than Assange.
As is Jobs and Bezos and the crown prince of Saudi-Arabia. And the Kochs; Murdock; the Walton family, and so on.

How about Jaimie Diamond or Lloyd Blankfein? We need a scale of cuntiness. So we don't lose our minds and any ability to assess stuff objectively.

How is Well's Fargo still a thing? Or Goldman Sachs? Why would tax-payers need to bail out the greed and crimes of huge banks?
Because people like Barack Obama and Hillary-Bill are cunts. Nancy Pelosi is a cunt. And so on.


No fucking way Assange deserves to be lumped into 'epic-cunt' territory.
Reply
#33
Why does everyone get carried away with the celebrity thing?  As though the only contenders for the title have to be high profile in one way or other??   Some of the most worthy of the title I've known have been penniless bludging thieving bastards who demanded or stole what they wanted and who had no concept whatever of charity going any way but towards themselves.  

The rich ones just rip you off at the shop, the 'poor' ones rip you off in your house in the wee small hours.

But this isn't about real world stuff is it?  This is about placing verbal offerings of virtuous indignation on the altar of ideology.
Sacrifice a billionaire's reputation for a daily brownie point.  Good one.  Hows that working out in the improving the world game?  Winning yet?

talktalktalktalkitup.  Meanwhile, back on their yachts ... they don't give a shit what you think of them. You don't matter.  They'll be philanthropic or not depending on what makes them feel good, it's not our call to make.
We buy their stuff, we make them rich, then we expect them to give the money back to us? 

The local fruit shop doesn't give your money back after you've eaten their apple.  But Job's should have?
Where did this idea that billionaires should be giving it back spring from??

Oh dear, I fear the bitch is among us today, I should have had that breakfast .. it's all TA's fault for posting that Indian thing. Dodgy

Actually I have this vague notion that there should be a globally agreed legal limit on annual income, or on the amount any one person, trust, or company should be allowed to have but it's a pure pipe dream,  a bit like the ones I'm reading here really.

Do you think that's a sign I'm a closet Socialist or something? Confused
Reply
#34
I don't see it that way, love.

You claim to lean right-ward, yet you confess that you'd vote for Bernie, if you could.
And now this:

You can see the point in an upper limit to wealth.

Maybe a billion bucks? does anyone need or deserve more than that?

Or do people with mega billions simply exert influence that they have no business doing?

It's not a radically lefty thought...in fact, we had managed some controls of this problem, during America's hey-day.

Somehow, we landed on the moon, despite tax levels of 90% for the ultra wealthy.

They still managed to be ultra wealthy.

beyond a billion bucks, wealth only serves the purpose of rearranging society to enable the mega-billionaires.

at which point, it becomes quite predictable.

I object to the notion that some people are simply thousands of times more intelligent and productive than the norm.

Bezos, at his peak, made $2500/ second.

In what system does that make a lick of sense?

Imho, it's a system that defies logic and biology. It's an artificial system. And a dangerous one.

We probably suspect that there are no people ten times smarter than us.
Nor people that work ten times more than us.

In a more logical approach, based on physiology and such, it's fairly obvious that the strongest man, or fastest runner, is, at best, maybe ten times faster or stronger than the average.
If we look at i.q. scores, or S.A.T.s, the spread is fairly nominal.
(If you know someone with an i.q. twice your own, then you are retarded.)

But this isn't about twice as much; ten times as much...this is about a perversion of logical parameters.
There are people that make 10,000 times as much as you or I.

Why?

Does that make sense, according to any other time honored parameters of excellence?

Of course not.

Hence,
a perversion.

Yet, even here, people on the left are inclined to defend this perversion.

It's hard to comprehend...not the perversion...the defense of it.

It defies something fundamental. Logically, it should jump out at as as the absurd perversion it is.

There is no athlete on Earth that can toss a discuss 1,000 times further than T.A.'s best toss.
Nobody alive has an i.q. 1000 times higher than mine.

(That's not a very braggy statement, hopefully.)


so why does economics seem to defile all this innate logic, gained from thousands of years of data?
It runs afoul of basic biology.

Perhaps I could acknowledge that Bill Gates of Jeff Bezos is 100 times more clever and hard working as me...But at the realm of ten-thousand times?

This is essentially an assault on the time homered math of evolution.
We have permitted and enabled something fundamentally perverse.

To defend the logic of it can only lead to trouble.

We've lost our freaking minds.
Reply
#35
Quote:Stanky:


There is no athlete on Earth that can toss a discuss 1,000 times further than T.A.'s best toss.
Nobody alive has an i.q. 1000 times higher than mine.

(That's not a very braggy statement, hopefully.)


so why does economics seem to defile all this innate logic, gained from thousands of years of data?
It runs afoul of basic biology.

Perhaps I could acknowledge that Bill Gates of Jeff Bezos is 100 times more clever and hard working as me...But at the realm of ten-thousand times?

This is essentially an assault on the time homered math of evolution.
We have permitted and enabled something fundamentally perverse.

To defend the logic of it can only lead to trouble.

We've lost our freaking minds.

It's the numbers that get you confused about it.  It has nothing to do with logic or mathematics.
It's all contained within the human brain.  Think of it as quantum physics, working within the normal known rules of everyday physics but not controlled, in any way we yet seem to understand, by the basic laws.
Don't confuse IQ with smart.  IQ is static, logical, even rigid. It's a higher grade of processor, but isn't necessarily inventive or innovative. 
It's why academics have higher IQs than than the people who are the vitally valued rich benefactors of their institutions.  "An ounce of ambition is worth a pound of IQ".   Smarts are flexible and adaptable.  ... best I can describe how I see it.
 
People who have ideas for a better mousetrap don't have to be brainiacs, they just have to want to make money out of it, using whatever talent their cerebral wiring produces.   If their IQs exceed their smarts then the mousetrap will gather dust on the shelf and never make them a cent.   If the bloke next door spots and markets it and makes a zillion out if despite being dumber then that's 'talent', not logic or IQ at work.

You're off on a tangent in comparing their success with their capabilities. It's not about that 1,000 more stuff, that's using logic when comparing apples to oranges.  It doesn't work.

I've seen people buying cans of air fer chrissakes, where's the logic in that? 

But they knew it was a joke and bought it for a laugh.  They'd mail it to someone else for a joke.
The seller's talent was knowing how to appeal to a customer's sense of humour, not to his sense of logic or his mathematical skills at 'valuing' the product.   Just look at what Zuckers sells! 

Billionaires (self made ones, I do draw a line at inherited billions) are just people with a talent and characters as varied as everybody else's.  It's not their characters that make them rich it's their 'talent' whatever that may be.
The characters dictate what they do with the material results of their success. 

There is no one size fits all equation involved.  This is what burrs me up a bit about 'liberals' attitudes to wealth. 
They stereotype.  There are multimillionaires, possibly even billionaires out there that we never hear about.  They're not looking for envy as the yardstick of their worth.   The ones we see are the show pony types.  They're not all like that.  But they are the ones that seem to have been used as the representation of all of them.

That's not logical, that's bias.

Re my 'rightward' leanings.  It's only discernibly right compared to what in America would be seen as extreme Left.

That same inclination to label everything and shove it in a pigeonhole causes you to view me as a lot 'Righter' than I really am.  
As TA knows, i've hoed in harder on the failings of the Conservative Party than on Labor's failings.  We simply don't view our politics as being near as polarised as it in the States.   Ours is far messier and harder to pigeonhole than yours.
Politics here is a sport.  I think you Americans take it far too seriously really.  They're just a bunch of people, mainly clueless, no smarter than we are, they just have a talent for public speaking and a character deficient of conscience, shame and usually both.  

My 'ideology' preference is based almost solely on which Party is most likely to take longest to send us all broke.

Simple as that.  No maths involved. WinkBig Grin
Reply
#36
I'd settle for a return to levels of bank regulations and taxes, and a block on tax shelters that we had during past conservative presidencies.
It's not an overly liberal of leftist sentiment. It's more like a distaste for what seems insane.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)